please don't think that they should be corrected by the Members of Congress. Let me tell you why. You know better than anybody else what goes on in this Commission, how you operate, and you are the best ones to fix anything. We know a little bit about a lot of things and not much about any one given thing, and if we start to mess around with it, we are going to mess it up.

So what I would really like to see, and what I would advise the chairman and this committee to do, even though my advice may not be taken, is rather than rush to judgment and rush to markup and rush to not wanting to authorize the Commission for more than a year, that we should say to you, we think you should, even though we have learned a little something here today, to continue. Don't consider that the vote that was taken, the 4-4 vote, is the end of the discussion when you are working on these subpoenas. Continue to work on that and see if there is the possibility of improvement in ways that will satisfy even more than a simple majority.

It would be great to come to a consensus and come back here and tell Congress, we have it all worked out, and I believe you can do that. Your work is very important. Even the chairman of this committee, who wishes to do something, he thinks, about affirmative action, needs the fact that you can find and you can share on what it is and what it is not.

You are right; everyone here will agree that this Nation is in serious trouble, and if, in fact, we had the work of the Commission with even more staff that could help us avoid what I just went through in Los Angeles a couple of years ago, we need you to continue to do that. I don't want to see the Commission destroyed from outside or from within.

If there is anything I would say to this chairman today, it is we should not rush to markup. We should reauthorize for 6 years with instructions or advice to you to continue to work on the question of subpoenas to ensure that you are absolutely, absolutely comfortable with the fact that subpoena is used in a way that respects the rights of individuals.

I worry an awful lot about what I see right here in the Congress and the direction that I see some of the Members of this House going in as they begin to delve into some of these very important issues with legislation. They don't have the information. If you start to ask people about the numbers of contractors with procurement opportunities, and the 8(a) set-aside, and the rule of 2, and how many where and what, they don't know what they are legislating, so we need your work. We need you delving into these issues, and we need to have the resources for you to do the dissemination that is necessary to educate the public.

Mr. CANADY. The time of the gentlelady is expired. Without objection, the gentlelady will have 2 additional minutes.

Ms. WATERS. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

I think that not only is your work important and you need to do the investigation; that is your mission, the factfinding, and then to be able to disseminate that information, but to the degree that you are comfortable with each other no matter where you come from, the appointments from the President, the Senate, Republican or Democrat, that makes for great debate opportunities, and out of

that, out of that interaction and even friction, I hope will come policies inside the Commission that will keep us out of the business, because our hands are not clean. There are some things that some of us would want to do that you would interfere with with facts, and I want those facts to come forward.

So ask this chairman and others to give you some time to continue to look at the policies inside even though you feel comfortable, some of you, Madam Chairperson, with the work that you have done. I think Mr. George should be allowed additional opportunity to continue to pursue his concerns inside the Commission, and I think that if you represent to this body that you are willing to do that and that you can do this, that hopefully we will leave you alone and let you get some work done.

Ms. BERRY. I worked with Commissioner George on the development of his proposal. As I told you, the vote was 4-4. I am perfectly willing to continue discussions, and, in fact, if I had had this legislation ahead of time, I would have tried to convene a discussion of the Commissioners to do this because, as I said, I saw how important it is when I was on the road in these forums. I don't want to interfere with anybody's rights.

Ms. WATERS. I know where you come from.

Ms. BERRY. So I am prepared to say that we will continue to try to work on those proposals together. I know Commissioner George is willing and the other Commissioners are.

Ms. WATERS. I yield some of my time to the gentleman who is trying to raise a point also.

Mr. ANDERSON. Two quick points. First I would like to say that the reason I am

Mr. CANADY. Without objection, the gentlelady will have 1 additional minute.

Mr. ANDERSON. The reason I am here today is because I was asked by the Chair of our Commission to be here. I am sorry Mr. Watt is not here to hear that.

Secondly, I think the Commissioners ought to vote on the subpoenas for individual witnesses. The problem is not just whether or not we subpoena all witnesses, although that is a question. It is also the scope of the subpoenas given to the witnesses. Some organizations in the Florida hearing got subpoenas of a very large scope. Others got subpoenas with a different scope.

Ms. WATERS. If I could reclaim my time, I hear you. I hear you loud and clear. I guess what I am saying to you is, you could discuss that all day with us, and we could take some action. We could make some legislation to take away subpoena powers to modify what have you, but what I am asking you is don't ask us to do that. Take those concerns back into the Commission again. Discuss them, debate them. Work them. And resolve them.

Mr. ANDERSON. I would say that when Commissioner George's proposal was defeated, I moved that we consider adopting only a portion of his proposal. That motion was also defeated, and the four Commissioners who voted against a part of the proposal did so on the basis that since our process is not broken, don't try to fix it. I don't believe there is any interest in continuing this discussion at the Commission.

Mr. CANADY. The gentleman from Michigan has requested additional time. Without objection, the gentleman will have an additional minute.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to raise to everyone at the witness table the subject of church fire burnings and the importance of you helping us look beneath the actual burnings themselves. We have an environment that fuels the activity of people who set fires, and I was just wondering has there been thinking on that? And I am sending a signal to you to stay in touch with me because we want to go into that. We have hearings Monday, the Congressional Black Caucus, on the insurance problem, and we would like to keep you posted on that at well. I would yield if anybody wants to tell me anything about this subject.

Ms. BERRY. We had a great deal of testimony, the State advisory committees did, on the underlying context that may have stimulated these fires even though we don't know who committed all of them. Some of them we do. For example, some people were saying, you know, the Klan did it.

Mr. CANADY. Without objection. The gentleman will have 1 additional minute.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you.

Ms. BERRY. Why would people who belong to the Klan want to do such a thing? What is going on in the social environment?

So there was a lot of discussion of this, which is why one of the things that the State advisory committees focused on was trying to bring people in the local community together to discuss these issues, have a conversation. Somebody said we needed a national conversation on these issues.

Well I think we need a local conversation, people locally talking to each other. And that is why some of the people like the judge I mentioned in Baker, LA, was working hard with the ministerial alliance to get black and white people to talk about this and use the fire occasion to sit down and talk about the local issues and have a plan working together to resolve them. I think that is key, and I think it is very important.

Mr. CONYERS. Anyone else?

Mr. GEORGE. Yes.

Congressman Conyers, the most positive thing I heard coming out of the one forum that I was able to attend in Columbia, SC

Mr. CANADY. Without objection, the gentleman will have 30 additional seconds.

Mr. GEORGE [continuing]. Was the report, and unfortunately, as Chairman Berry has pointed out, this is not true in every case, but certainly in numerous cases, and it was certainly reported to us in South Carolina that the victory was deprived to the racist arsonist when people, black and white, came together not only to rebuild the church, but to make a clear statement that we are not going to put up with this.

I think there is a climate, the larger cultural problem having to do the kind of disrespect for each other, nihilism, a disrespect for God which is behind these in the broader sense. And that has got to be addressed at many, many different levels. It can't all be done

by Congress, and it can't all be done by Government, but it is going to be done.

Mr. CONYERS. Congressman Inglis of South Carolina joined us at our hearings, and we were very pleased that there were bipartisan congressional visits to the South in this matter.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CANADY. The gentleman's time has expired.

I want to thank each of the witnesses for being with us today. We appreciate your testimony. It has been helpful. The subcommittee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]

FAX TO WILLIAM MAGRATH (6 pages including this one!
FROM DENNIS TETI

SUBJECT: Vote on "Funding Civil Rights Enforcement" Report

In response to your request for information concerning the vote on this report, please be advised of the following:

i. The report is stated by the Staff Director's Office 3) to have passed on a telephone pol! taken on one day, Tuesday, June 20th, the vete being 4 to 1 with ? met veeing.

c. Commissioners Redenbaugh, Anderson. and George report that they were not given a proper opportunity to vote.

3. Commissioner Horner reports that her negative vote was received by a secretary in 030 as a courtesy before the fwmo vote and was counted merely in order to complete a quorum.

4. Due to overseas travel, Commissioner George also asked by memo (copy attached) on the day before the report, to be given the normal courtesy of voting "before the end of this week.“ The memo was hand delivered to but never acknowledged by OSD.

5. All 4 Commissioners advised Chairman Berry by memo cn Monday, 6/19 (copy attached), that the current report was unacceptable and described the problems with it, but that they were "eager to support an aggressive report and sought to work out the differences to reach consensus.

6. Commissioners Redenbaugh and Anderson were in negotiation with Chairman Berry even as the vote was taken and closed out.

7. Attached is also the report's transmittal menc of 6/6 including the Staff Director's assurance that the poll vote would be taken "at a time convenient to all Commissioners.

8. You should also know that in the experience of these 4 Cormissioners, no previous telephone poll was ever closed out in a single day in disregard of Commissioners wanting to vote a day or two thereafter. This opportunity has always been offered as a matter of fairness as well as courtesy.

att.

(63)